| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, John Hansen <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: LGPL |
| Date: | 2005-06-18 05:26:16 |
| Message-ID: | 9219.1119072376@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> With libreadline, we are not taking their code or distributing it, but
>> merely linking to it if it exists.
> But we are also requiring it. The rpms won't install unless readline is
> available.
The RPMs require it --- not our source code. Since the RPMs can only
work atop a GPL OS (Linux), it hardly matters in that context.
What is important is that it is possible, and useful, to build Postgres
in a completely non-GPL environment. If that were not so then I think
we'd have some license issues. But the fact that building PG in a
GPL-ized environment creates a GPL-ized binary is not a problem from my
point of view. You've already bought into the GPL if you're using that
environment.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-18 05:36:34 | Re: Utility database (Was: RE: Autovacuum in the backend) |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-06-18 00:04:36 | Re: Autovacuum in the backend |